Does a pure SDN network need MPLS labels? A control plane that contains MPLS protocols is distributed even if there are elements of SDN in it.
From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Lucy yong Sent: Tuesday, July 23, 2013 9:28 AM To: Luyuan Fang (lufang); Aldrin Isaac; Kireeti Kompella Cc: L3VPN; Yakov Rekhter; [email protected]; [email protected]; UTTARO, JAMES Subject: RE: [nvo3] The possibility of using global MPLS labels as VNIs ... for l3vpn In distributed control plane approach, we have strong consensus that local ID is the way to go. Like to hear more the people opinions about: in SDN approach, will global ID and local ID are equally good (just mater choice) or one is better than other? Lucy From: Luyuan Fang (lufang) [mailto:[email protected]]<mailto:[mailto:[email protected]]> Sent: Tuesday, July 23, 2013 11:06 AM To: Lucy yong; Aldrin Isaac; Kireeti Kompella Cc: L3VPN; Yakov Rekhter; [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>; Xuxiaohu; [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>; UTTARO, JAMES Subject: Re: [nvo3] The possibility of using global MPLS labels as VNIs ... for l3vpn You choose the ID type: global or local. You choose the control paradigm, SDN, dynamic control plane, or hybrid. The two decisions are independent. My personal preferences: SDN with local ID. Luyuan From: Lucy yong <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Date: Tuesday, July 23, 2013 11:58 AM To: Luyuan Fang <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>, Aldrin Isaac <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>, Kireeti Kompella <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Cc: L3VPN <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>, Yakov Rekhter <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>, "[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>" <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>, Xuxiaohu <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>, "[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>" <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>, "UTTARO, JAMES" <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Subject: RE: [nvo3] The possibility of using global MPLS labels as VNIs ... for l3vpn As I see, using SDN approach or distributed control plane, and using global or local ID are two orthogonal questions. [Lucy] then, the question to be asked is which usage makes sense in the SDN approach, global ID or local ID? IMHO: they are related. Lucy > is distributed architecture better than centralized architecture for VPN or > virtual network overlay? No necessarily. Luyuan From: Lucy yong <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Date: Tuesday, July 23, 2013 11:14 AM To: Aldrin Isaac <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>, Kireeti Kompella <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Cc: Luyuan Fang <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>, L3VPN <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>, Yakov Rekhter <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>, "[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>" <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>, Xuxiaohu <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>, "[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>" <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>, "UTTARO, JAMES" <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Subject: RE: [nvo3] The possibility of using global MPLS labels as VNIs ... for l3vpn For distributed based architecture, the local context ID has a lot of benefits. For centralized (or SDN) architecture, will the global context ID have advance? Another way to ask this is: is distributed architecture better than centralized architecture for VPN or virtual network overlay? Lucy From:[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Aldrin Isaac Sent: Tuesday, July 23, 2013 8:00 AM To: Kireeti Kompella Cc: Luyuan Fang (lufang); L3VPN; Yakov Rekhter; [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>; Xuxiaohu; [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>; UTTARO, JAMES Subject: Re: [nvo3] The possibility of using global MPLS labels as VNIs ... for l3vpn +1. Network operators lose flexibility with Global VNIDs. Virtual topology will be fine tuned on top of VNIDs by squeezing a square peg (ACLs) into a round hole (where it's otherwise not needed). I think local context IDs will make a come back once we regain our sanity. :). On Tuesday, July 23, 2013, Kireeti Kompella wrote: Hi Xuxiaohu, Sorry for the previous empty email. On Jul 23, 2013, at 4:51, Xuxiaohu <[email protected]<javascript:;>> wrote: > The reason that I started this discussion is to make sure whether the Virtual > Network Context Identification contained in the data packet is REALLY > required to be globally unique in some cases. No. There's nothing useful that I know that one can do with global IDs in the data plane that one cannot do with local IDs, and local IDs are easier to allocate and manage. So, I'd be going the other way and advocate locally significant VNIDs for VXLAN and NVGRE, not global IDs for VPNs. (And I do) Kireeti _______________________________________________ nvo3 mailing list [email protected]<javascript:;> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nvo3
